I found this poll while browsing Felix Alvarado's blog in search of support for Royal Masset's claim (of which Kuffner and I are both skeptical) that Alvarado was likely to win the Democratic primary. The poll is of 499 registered voters, +/- 4.5%.

When SurveyUSA came on the scene, it was widely criticized by established pollsters. Those criticisms have largely died down, because SurveyUSA has a very solid track record in polling for elections.

A poll of registered voters for favorable/unfavorable/neutral doesn't tell us too much right now, but I thought I'd pass it on as a data point. I don't think SUSA polled party preference, but if they did I would have loved to see crosstabs on Strayhorn's numbers. I'm also a little surprised that Friedman has more unfavorables than favorables.

Comments

Why would you be "skeptical" of Royal's assessment. Alvarado, as the SUSA polls shows, has the best name ID, the best postive/negative ratio, and the track record of the Morales/Chapman/Bryant race to draw on.

Every unaffiliated political consultant I've talked to thinks Alvarado is the clear front-runner.

I'd be interested to hear why you think otherwise.

PS: I have heard the theory that if Gammage has some major donors (say, five folks who put $75,000 up each) then a late radio or cable buy could get him into a run-off. And in a low turnout run-off, a more sophisticated electorate would probably select Gammage.

I think the real problem here is the lack of any real name ID for any of the Dems. I still want to hold onto the belief that Bell is the frontrunner, if only because he has spent the past year speaking with the party activists, the people who turn up to vote in primaries.

The closer we get get to March 7th, though, the harder it is to really gauge what's going to happen. Is someone going to make a media buy? Will Alvarado raise the money? Just don't know.